Reining in the Law, CCR-4331 Unconstitutional and Discriminatory

[Blackstormhorse]

Jurisdiction

California

---

Introduction

S R, owner of Seahorse Equestrian, has endured over 13 years of harassment by the California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR), which has arbitrarily enforced CCR §4331. This regulation severely impacts Mr. horse rental business and has caused immense financial and emotional harm. The DPR's actions have deprived Mr. of his due process rights and discriminated against him by selectively enforcing the regulation while allowing other commercial activities within state parks, such as bicycle rentals, to continue without interference.

This appeal seeks to reverse the summary judgment entered against Mr. , which was based on Request for Admissions deemed admitted without his knowledge or participation. Mr. requests a jury trial to ensure that these issues are properly heard and that his constitutional rights are upheld.

---

Factual Background

In 2018, after years of conflict, Mr. reached a plea agreement with the DPR in R v. California State Parks. The agency's harassment briefly stopped but resumed following the retirement of Judge I. The DPR revoked Mr. permits, issued tickets, and continued obstructing his business. On July 4, 2024, Mr. Roth experienced one of the worst personal losses in this battle when his horse , a descendant of the legendary racehorse died after ingesting water hemlock. The financial strain caused by the DPR's actions left Mr. unable to properly care for , and this tragedy underscores the ongoing emotional and financial toll of the DPR's overreach.

---

Legal Arguments

1. Due Process Violations

The trial court's summary judgment, based on Request for Admissions deemed admitted without Mr. 's knowledge, violates his right to due process. Courts must consider the substantive issues of a case, not fast-track decisions based on procedural technicalities. Mr. was deprived of a fair opportunity to present his case.

2. Non-Delegation Doctrine

CCR §4331 grants the DPR excessive and unchecked discretionary power without clear statutory guidelines. This violates the Non-Delegation Doctrine, as it allows for arbitrary enforcement. The DPR has misused this regulation to selectively target horse rental businesses like Mr. s, while other commercial activities within state parks, such as bike rentals, continue without scrutiny.

3. Equal Protection Clause Violations

The selective enforcement of CCR §4331 against Mr.'s business, while allowing other similar commercial activities to operate, violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Mr. has been singled out for arbitrary enforcement, and this discriminatory treatment has caused significant harm to his business and livelihood.

---

Damages

1. Financial Damages

The ongoing harassment by the DPR has cost Mr. his business. S's lost revenue is estimated at $150,000 per year, with a total loss of over $1,950,000over 13 years. In addition, the value of his business has deteriorated due to reputational harm and lost business opportunities.

2. Emotional and Psychological Damages

Mr. has suffered significant emotional distress, particularly following the death of . The inability to properly care for his horses due to financial constraints has caused immense guilt and emotional suffering. The constant legal battles have only added to the psychological burden.

---

Conclusion

For the reasons outlined above, Mr. respectfully requests that the Court of Appeals reverse the summary judgment entered against him and grant him a jury trial. This case involves not just legal issues but deep personal and emotional harm, and a jury is best suited to evaluate the complexities and determine the appropriate relief.

 

[zddoodah]

CCR §4331.

The California Code of Regulations (which is what I assume you're referring to here) is a body of law consisting of 28 separate titles. Simply referring to a section number isn't useful. I could guess which title this refers to, but I don't like to guess.

This appeal

Is this a matter that's presently in litigation?

the summary judgment entered against Mr. Roth, which was based on Request for Admissions deemed admitted without his knowledge or participation.

The only way that RFAs get deemed admitted is if the responding party fails to respond to properly served RFAs. Without any detail about the service of the RFAs and the motion practice that followed, it's impossible to make much of this.

Any Lawyer interested in making a lot of money, Please Email me

LOL!

P.S. I reported your post, and a mod will be removing the personal identifying information in due course.

 

[adjusterjack]

P.S. I reported your post, and a mod will be removing the personal identifying information in due course.

Done.

 

[Blackstormhorse]

The California Code of Regulations (which is what I assume you're referring to here) is a body of law consisting of 28 separate titles. Simply referring to a section number isn't useful. I could guess which title this refers to, but I don't like to guess.




Is this a matter that's presently in litigation?




The only way that RFAs get deemed admitted is if the responding party fails to respond to properly served RFAs. Without any detail about the service of the RFAs and the motion practice that followed, it's impossible to make much of this.




LOL!

P.S. I reported your post, and a mod will be removing the personal identifying information in due course.

I

Done.

I don't have any idea what you are talking about. So would you elaborate a little? Why don't you just tell me what I am doing wrong so I can correct it....

 

[Blackstormhorse]

I

I don't have any idea what you are talking about. So would you elaborate a little? Why don't you just tell me what I am doing wrong so I can correct it....

Yes its in litigation! Yes the RFA was late, because I have 11 horses to deal with and I didn't know of their importance at the time. It's in the 6th district court of appeals now. Still need help

 

[adjusterjack]

I

I don't have any idea what you are talking about. So would you elaborate a little? Why don't you just tell me what I am doing wrong so I can correct it....

I removed personal information like names, your plea for an attorney, and your email address, none of which is permitted.

This is not the way to find an attorney. Attorneys don't come here looking for clients. Regular posters here cannot give specific "how to" legal advice, just general information.

Your state bar has a directory of attorneys from which you can select one (or more) to contact. There really isn't anything anybody here can do for you.

 

[Blackstormhorse]

Well how am I supposed to get an attorney to help me if I don't ask?
Are you one?

 

[Blackstormhorse]

Help me out here Adjusterjack

 

[Blackstormhorse]

You obviously read my post, so you know whats going on...

 

[adjusterjack]

No, I'm not an attorney. Yes, I read your post. I'm sympathetic but there's nothing I can do for you.

The way you get an attorney is you call one up, make an appointment, and you go in and discuss your case. Bring your checkbook because, at the appellate level, your chances of getting a contingency agreement to try to overturn a summary judgment is slim to none.

 

[Blackstormhorse]

Why if the summary judgement was done without your knowledge or participation. If there was $7,000,000 on the table, I would at least look at it. Boy aren't we just a ray of sunshine? Why you so negative? Thanks for being sympathetic though. I have been looking for a lawyer for awhile. They all want personal injury cases and don't like fighting the government. I need a special lawyer. Not an ambulance chaser, Someone like that chic on Yellowstone. More like a wildcat!

 

[Red Kayak]

I dunno, but maybe "Horseback Riding Without All The D*** Rules!" comes across to DPR as hostile.

If you've only contacted personal injury lawyers, you need to do a bit more research. Most practices are very up front about what types of law they specialize in.

 

[Blackstormhorse]

I dunno, but maybe "Horseback Riding Without All The D*** Rules!" comes across to DPR as hostile.

If you've only contacted personal injury lawyers, you need to do a bit more research. Most practices are very up front about what types of law they specialize in.

Its funny, because
they said the same thing. You must be a ranger! I wasn't referring to park rules, I was referring to horse rules. I had to explain that to them too. I could care less what they say anyway, because they are a bunch of assholes that really don't know much at all. If you only knew...

 

[stealthy1]

I dunno, but maybe "Horseback Riding Without All The D*** Rules!" comes across to DPR as hostile.

Or maybe they've read TripAdvisor reviews...

 

[justblue]

Or maybe they've read TripAdvisor reviews...

Yes, seems like many unhappy folks who were, per their point of view and their postings on TripAdvisor, "scammed".

 

[Blackstormhorse]

Or maybe they've read TripAdvisor reviews...

Do you believe everything you read? Just because you read one trip advisor bad review. Maybe you should try Yelp. You can't please everyone all the time. try google maps. Why is everyone so negative on this site? I am not perfect and shit happens. Little do you know I am fighting for your rights, not mine. Read the whole document below and you will see the truth.

 

[Blackstormhorse]

Yes, seems like many unhappy folks who were, per their point of view and their postings on TripAdvisor, "scammed".

They weren't scammed. Check out Yelp and google maps. There are lots of good ones on there. I have way more good ones than bad, over a 13 year period.

 

[Blackstormhorse]

Yes, seems like many unhappy folks who were, per their point of view and their postings on TripAdvisor, "scammed".

Check out yelp and googlemaps

 

[Blackstormhorse]

Or maybe they've read TripAdvisor reviews...

All of you only read Trip Advisor or what? No wonder you are so angry!

 

[Zigner]

You misunderstand the purpose of this forum. This

Yes its in litigation! Yes the RFA was late, because I have 11 horses to deal with and I didn't know of their importance at the time. It's in the 6th district court of appeals now. Still need help

Failing to prioritize legal matters properly isn't solid grounds for an appeal. You made choices and are now dealing with the consequences of those choices.